Take your pick. They are doing it in the US and Europe. Once someone has the power, you can bet he is gonna use it.
I don’t have any direct complaints about big tech being governed, but there’s an odd and interesting power differential at work here. Big tech influences all parts of the globe, and yet the policy decisions of bigger nations are the only ones that really hold sway. If you’re outside of those jurisdictions, you’re not being represented, even though it affects you.
GDPR is a great example. We all get bombarded with cookie warnings now, even if we aren’t in the EU.
Oh, is it really true that they did it in the United States Presidential Election last year? I’d like to know more about that.
It is fairly well-documented that Facebook played a role in the election of Trump and the Brexit decision via Cambridge Analytica:
1 Like
That’s the nature of the beast. Who else is able to do something about their power? Other governments can only shut them off (e.g. Nigeria). But I get your point. The companies are everywhere, pay taxes where they wish and it is not feasible for most countries to just shut them off when most of their citizens are using their services daily.
1 Like
Or banning the most powerful man on Earth. So the most powerful men on Earth are probably in Sillicon Valley 
1 Like
It didn’t help when Zuckerberg went before Congress and treated them like they were a bunch of morons. Oh, wait…
My concern with the big tech companies is that many of them have decided that it’s not their just their job to connect, but their job to determine truth.
Facebook is a good example. There were some things that would’ve gotten your posts removed (not just “tagged” in some way) for being “fake news” a year or so ago that are now actually credibly believed by mainstream people. Same post, two different reactions depending on whether Facebook believes it to be truthful.
I’m of the general opinion that if a platform wants the sort of “common carrier” exemptions provided by US law, then their enforcement actions should be based on things that US law requires them to remove.
I understand the “they’re a private business” argument. I’m just not persuaded in the case of platforms that have intentionally (and arguably anti-competitively) put themselves at the center of worldwide communication.
They control the information. Justice Thomas made great arguments for their regulation. But that is a different topic. In this context I believe the antitrust package is mainly a pretext to limit the power of Big Tech since many politicians are afraid of them.
1 Like
Unfortunately, there is good evidence that Section 230 has done exactly that.
I think it’s gonna be difficult to come up with legislation that can be successfully applied to all of the companies being targeted, because the businesses that those companies are in are so varied. So we’re gonna end up with a patchwork of laws that will inevitably conflict with each other. The lawyers must be licking their lips.
Would they also mandate that other electronic devices (Android phones, Smart TV’s, Set top boxes, Smart Fridges, Smart Speakers, Computers, etc) come without any pre-installed apps? Else, it’s potentially just targeting o
I agree with your concerns, but I think it’s important to state that they have decided that their job is to keep a constant income stream, and they will determine what the truth is based on what pose a threat to that stream.
Right now, only the entities that buy advertising (and other services) from the big platforms can influence those platforms (and the balance of power is shifting).
1 Like
That is exactly what it is IMHO.